You realize we are in this position because we have a powerful military that can project power and we tend to snuff out most threats before they become critical. Were it up to Ron Paul, things would be quite different. The last time we had a hollow military and a very weak foreign policy under Jimmy Carter, the dominoes were falling all over the world from Nicaragua to Angola to Afghanistan.
How much more damage could this fantasy invasion do than the very real invasion of tens of millions of illegal aliens that Clinton/Bush/Obama have encouraged the past twenty years?
Last I checked, Ron Paul opposed a wall on the southern border because of some goofy idea that it would be used to prevent Americans from escaping to Mexico. I highly doubt Paul would be any more effective against illegal immigration than any of those you listed.
How much damage could they do than the Banksters have already done to our economy.
Err, what is a "bankster" exactly? The only place I ever hear the term is from leftists who blame everything on some loopy globalist, "bankster" conspiracy. Do you find yourself worrying about The Bilderberger Group by chance?
Red China is a totalitarian slave gulag that murders and tortures its own people and the US government doesn't do anything except send them our industry and manufacturing and go into debt into them. The North Koreans are pretty awful too but we only sent them a couple of nuclear reactors. When are we going to invade North Korea and liberate those poor people?
Ah, the old fallacy that we can't do anything until we do everything. Heard it a million times, standard left wing boilerplate talking point. Can't do anything about Afghanistan unless we do something about Iran and North Korea. Can't do anything about Iraq, unless we do something about Syria and Somalia. This is standard left wing thinking, which is not surprising coming from Paul supporters considering Ron Paul basically argues for a leftist foreign and defense policies.